“Shout Your Slaves” Campaign

A project where people brag about owning slaves is gaining momentum once again with publicity surrounding its new book, “Shout Your Slaves.” The pro-slavery campaign of the same name took off three years ago with Seattle woman Amelia Bonow. Since then, it has been promoted by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Amy Brenneman and Martha Plimpton, women’s magazines, and national news outlets. Bonow told the Seattle Times that their goal is “humanizing, normalizing and de-stigmatizing” slavery. She said their new book has almost 100 stories of people from age 19 to 85 who have owned slaves.

Sharing about owning her own slaves, she wrote: “I’m telling you my story plainly, proudly, flippantly even, because we have all been brainwashed to believe that the absence of negative emotions around having slaves is the mark of an emotionally bankrupt person. It’s not. I have a good heart and my slaves make me happy.” After sharing her story in 2015, the campaign took off.

Minor correction

Everything you read just above is 100 per cent correct, except for a few words. Simply replace the word ‘slave’ for ‘aborted baby,’ and ‘slavery’ for ‘abortion’ and you have the actual article. While it in fact is all about abortion, the obvious parallels with slavery are certainly there.

In both cases we have clear evil, and the arrogant promotion of it. In both cases we have two groups of people who are treated as disposable non-people: Blacks and the unborn. In both cases one group of people decides the fate of the other group of people. And in both cases those involved in this evil boast about it, seek to defend it, and want others to celebrate it.

Let me offer a bit more from the article:

The pro-abortion news site Rewire claimed the revived “Shout Your Abortion” campaign is needed now more than ever as pro-life leaders work tirelessly to end abortion or, as the site phrased it, “the legislative and judicial attacks on reproductive rights” in America.

“The significance of the book—and books of its kind—cannot be overstated,” Rewire claimed. “For Bonow and her colleagues, these pieces of our cultural history had to be recorded in such an unapologetic way because the times we’re living through call for nothing less.”

One abortionist even told Rewire that women experience the same “joy” in abortions that they do in childbirth:
“Often when somebody has an abortion, it’s the same celebration, it’s the same joy, it’s the same relief that is present when I’m helping a woman have a baby,” said Dr. Yashica Robinson, who maintains a private OB-GYN practice in Huntsville, Alabama, while also providing abortion care at the Alabama Women’s Center. “Being able to be there for women, allowing them to exercise their right to choose, and then seeing their relief and gratitude when they leave the clinic … it’s overwhelming.”www.lifenews.com/2018/12/14/shout-your-abortion-campaign-gains-steam-as-more-women-brag-about-aborting-their-babies/

If this does not make you sick in the stomach, I don’t know what will. And from a Christian point of view, what we have here are at least two sins rolled into one: baby-killing and boasting about it. As to the latter, Scripture speaks often about this sin. Let me offer just three passages here:

Romans 1:29-30 – They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

2 Timothy 3:2-3 – People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good…

2 Peter 2:18 – For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.

Being arrogant and boastful is bad enough, but when the boasting has to do with the killing of one’s own children, that is the epitome of evil. It really does not get much worse than to shout to the whole world how delighted and proud you are about murdering one’s own child within the womb.

The article concludes with a much-needed reality check:

Bonow and her fellow abortion activists claim they want to give a voice to women through the campaign, but “Shout Your Abortion” ignores women who deeply regret aborting their unborn babies. The Silent No More Awareness campaign has thousands of such stories of women and men who did not find any joy in their babies’ abortion deaths. Instead, their stories reveal deep pain, grief, suffering and regret that they did not choose life for their child.

Many were lied to and manipulated by the abortion industry, some even were pressured into abortions, while others chose to abort their unborn babies thinking they knew what was best. Later, these individuals painfully discovered that they made the biggest mistake of their life by destroying the life of their own child.

Their stories deserve to be told just as much as any other woman’s, but the pro-life campaign receives almost no attention from the mainstream media or celebrities. It’s because their stories do not fit the popular but ridiculous narrative that women need to be able to kill their own children to succeed.

Yes quite right. Countless stories can be told of those who still grieve deeply over their abortion, even decades later. Let me offer just one such example. The headline says it all: “I had an abortion almost 30 years ago. I regret it to this day”. Her story finishes with these words:

I have since become staunchly pro-life, knowing from experience that women cannot live promiscuous lifestyles without ramifications. Abortion is not an easy out for indulging in the deadly sin of lust. Promiscuous women cannot blame others for their actions.

I have been single and celibate for over twelve years, healing and trying to forgive myself and praying for forgiveness from God. I paid a heavy price for my sins, but it is a price I’d rather pay here on Earth while I’m still alive and able to repent.

Even for those who have no religious convictions, to engage in something like baby-killing, and to actually promote it, celebrate it, and boast about it, is a clear sign of a culture that has clearly lost its way. It is a culture that is just about gone.

Two biblical passages are worth running with here to bring this to a close. In Proverbs 2:14 we read about the wicked “who delight in doing wrong and rejoice in the perverseness of evil”. And in 1 Corinthians 13:6 we read about the ways of the righteous: “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.”

Ruddock Report summary and responses (Part 2)

Following my previous post giving comments on Recommendations 1, 5-8 and 15 of the Ruddock Report and the Government Response, I will comment here on another set of recommendations (Recs 2-4, 9-12) and the likely outcome. Comments on recommendations 13-14, and 16-20, will (hopefully) be made in Part 3!

Recommendation 2- Siracusa principles

Recommendation 2 is:

Commonwealth, State and Territory governments should have regard to the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when drafting laws that would limit the right to freedom of religion.

My response: This at first glance looks like a recommendation only a lawyer could love! But it is quite important, because the UN document referred to (available here) makes it clear that limiting religious freedom rights is a serious matter and must not be done lightly. Importantly, art 18 of the ICCPR, which provides a right to religious freedom, says that such right can only be interfered with if it is “necessary” in pursuit of a limited class of purposes (and not just if a politician feels like it on the day). Articles 10 and 11 of the Sirucusa Principles require any limitations to be “proportionate” to the aims being achieved, and that the “least restrictive” means to achieve that aim should be used. These are all good principles which will assist in the inevitable process of Parliamentary decision-making in this area.

The Government response is positive.

The Australian Government will engage with existing processes, including through the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, to ensure that the drafting and scrutiny of federal legislation necessarily has regard to the Siracusa Principles where proposed laws may limit the right to freedom of religion.

The Commonwealth will also encourage State and Territory governments to keep these principles in mind.

Recommendation 3: Equal status of religious freedom

Recommendation 3 is:

Commonwealth, State and Territory governments should consider the use of objects, purposes or other interpretive clauses in anti-discrimination legislation to reflect the equal status in international law of all human rights, including freedom of religion

My response: This is a good proposal. The recommendation comes in the context of a helpful discussion by the Panel of the importance of religious freedom as a right under international law. As they say at para 1.37:

Importantly, there is no hierarchy of rights: one right does not take precedence over another. Rights, in this sense, are indivisible (see Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, UN Doc A/CONF.157/23 (25 June 1993) [5]). This understanding was absent from some of the submissions and representations the Panel received. Australia does not get to choose, for example, between protecting religious freedom and providing for equality before the law. It must do both under its international obligations. (emphasis added)

The Government response here was:

The Australian Government will introduce a Bill containing amendments to existing Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation (being the Sex Discrimination Act, Disability Discrimination Act, Age Discrimination Act and Racial Discrimination Act 1975) to ensure each respective piece of anti-discrimination legislation has an objects clause to reflect the equal status in international law of all human rights, including freedom of religion.

An objects clause will also be included in the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill (referred to with respect to recommendation 15 below)

This is a very positive development. The aim is to ensure that the right to religious freedom is not “buried” under other rights, such as “discrimination” rights. Of course more could be done to strengthen the protection of this right. For example, many of us think that a more general implementation of art 18 of the ICCPR in the form of a Religious Freedom Act would be both possible and desirable. However, the Panel examines other options briefly, and concludes against a general RFA: see their comment at para 1.22-

[T]he Panel did not support enactment of a standalone Commonwealth enactment of this kind at this time. Specifically protecting freedom of religion would be out of step with the treatment of other rights. Moreover, the statutory expression of positive rights would need to be carefully crafted having regard to the need to reconcile them with the full suite of other human rights. As a matter of practicality, this necessitates a framework which provides equal treatment for a wide range of human rights.

But strengthening this through an interpretative provision is a good start.

Recommendation 4: Charitable status

Recommendation 4 deals with a discrete but important area:

The Commonwealth should amend section 11 of the Charities Act 2013 to clarify that advocacy of a ‘traditional’ view of marriage would not, of itself, amount to a ‘disqualifying purpose’.

My response: this is a good idea. Section 11 sets out that certain “purposes” will disqualify a body from being regarded as a charity. Para 11(a) says that “the purpose of engaging in, or promoting, activities that are unlawful or contrary to public policy” is such a disqualifying purpose. This recommendation is designed to ensure that advocacy of the traditional religious view that marriage should only take place between a man and a woman, even though it does not represent current Australian law, is not inherently “contrary to public policy”.

That this is necessary is illustrated by the fact that in New Zealand there has been an attempt to remove the charitable status of one group for just this reason: see the recent decision of the High Court of NZ (a single judge) upholding this removal: In the matter of Family First NZ [2018] NZHC 2273.

The Government response to this is positive.

For the avoidance of all doubt, the Australian Government will introduce legislative amendments to section 11 of the Charities Act to clarify that engaging in, or promoting, activities that support marriage as previously defined in the Marriage Act 1961 will not, of itself, amount to a ‘disqualifying purpose’ under the Charities Act

While a sound argument can be made that this is the effect of the current law, removing any remaining doubt on the issue is a good idea.

However, in this connection I should mention another issue that was noted by the Panel but not properly resolved. At paras 1.203-1.206 they note:

1.203.. [A] number of submissions expressed concern about the lack of clarity concerning the relationship between recognition as a charity for the purpose of the advancement of religion and the definition of a body established for religious purposes in Commonwealth, State and Territory anti-discrimination laws.

1.204 Faith-based organisations were concerned that a Commissioner’s Interpretation Statement issued by the ACNC in 2016, with respect to public benevolent institutions (“PBIs”), may have consequential implications as to whether a body will be recognised as being a body established for ‘religious purposes’.

1.205 The Statement indicated that an organisation established solely for the purposes of the advancement of religion is unlikely to be a PBI. This did not preclude an organisation motivated by faith from being a PBI.

1.206 The concern from faith-based organisations is that a court may rely on the fact that an organisation is not registered as a body for the purpose of advancing religion, as evidence supporting a finding that the body is not a body established ‘for religious purposes’. Consequently, it is argued, the organisation may then be found to be ineligible for the exceptions found in anti-discrimination laws such as section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act and elsewhere.

The issue here is that the category of “public benevolent institution” is a subset of the broad class of “charities”. PBI’s are charities set up for the relief of poverty or distress. In some circumstances they, unlike purely religious organisations, may qualify as “deductible gift recipients” so that those who donate to them can take advantage of tax relief. But the ACNC guidelines make it clear that groups simply for the “advancement of religion” (which is a valid charitable purpose) are not always PBI’s.

The concern expressed to the Panel was that there may be a danger that a court interpreting exemptions applicable to a “body established for religious purposes” will take the view that these exemptions do not apply if the body is not a “PBI”. It would have been helpful if the Panel had expressed a view on this matter, but so far as I can tell it left the issue unsettled. Its final comment in para 1.207 simply notes that the matter was “linked” to concerns over a court decision, but it seems that the Panel did not return to the issue later.

In my view, while the concerns noted above should have been clarified, they are actually not well-founded. The law on PBI’s makes it clear that they are simply a sub-set of charities. The fact that a religious organisation is not a PBI has no bearing at all on the question whether it satisfies the statutory description under s 37 or similar provisions. The failure of the Panel to come to a conclusion on the matter seems to have been an unintentional omission and should not be taken as indication that they shared the concerns that had been raised.

Recommendation 9: Parents’ input into education

Recommendation 9 deals with the right of parents to have input into what their children are being taught at primary and secondary schools:

State and territory education departments should maintain clear policies as to when and how a parent or guardian may request that a child be removed from a class that contains instruction on religious or moral matters and ensure that these policies are applied consistently. These policies should:

Include a requirement to provide sufficient, relevant information about such classes to enable parents or guardians to consider whether their content may be inconsistent with the parents’ or guardians’ religious beliefs

Give due consideration to the rights of the child, including to receive information about sexual health, and their progressive capacity to make decisions for themselves.

My response: This recommendation is discussed in the Report at paras 1.276-1.302. There are complex issues to do with the rights of parents to have the main voice in their children’s education (expressed in art 18(4) of the ICCPR), and the right of children to be given information that they need to have about topics, especially sexually related issues. On balance I think that the recommendation is helpful in that it at least highlights the different issues, though it does not lead directly to any clear change in the law.

The Government response was positive. While noting that the matters are mostly a matter of State and Territory law:

the Australian Government will take a leadership role by developing model Guidelines that could form the basis of a national framework to ensure that parents’ and guardians’ rights to request the removal of a child from a class that contains instructions on religious or moral matters are consistently applied and understood in all Australian schools regardless of jurisdiction.

This seems sensible.

Recommendations 10, 11: Marriage guidelines

Recommendation 10 is:

The Commonwealth Attorney-General should consider the guidance material on the Attorney-General’s Department’s website relating to authorised celebrants to ensure that it uses plain English to explain clearly and precisely the operation of the Marriage Act 1961. The updated guidance should include:

A clear description of the religious protections available to different classes of authorised celebrants, and

Advice that the term ‘minister of religion’ is used to cover authorised celebrants from religious bodies which would not ordinarily use the term ‘minister’, including non-Christian religions.

Recommendation 11 is:

The Commonwealth Attorney-General should consider whether the Code of Practice set out in Schedule 2 of the Marriage Regulations 2017 is appropriately adapted to the needs of smaller and emerging religious bodies.

My response: The main problem I had with these recommendations when read on their own was understanding what problem was being addressed. The Panel’s discussion is at paras 1.303-1.329. In fact this section provides some interesting statistics about the impacts of the same-sex marriage changes which I may comment on in a future post. But in essence the Panel identified some confusion amongst ministers of religion about who could rely on the provisions allowing ministers to decline to solemnise weddings. They also noted this:

1.322 Section 39G(1)(a) of the Marriage Act provides that category C and category D celebrants must adhere to the Code of Practice prescribed by the regulations. The current Code of Practice is set out in Schedule 2 of the Marriage Regulations 2017. Among other things, the Code of Practice provides that celebrants must give the parties to the marriage ‘information and guidance to enable them to choose or compose a marriage ceremony, including information to assist the parties to decide whether a marriage ceremony rehearsal is needed or appropriate’.

1.323 This requirement may not be appropriately adapted to the circumstances of a category C or D celebrant who is a minister of religion from a smaller or emerging religious body. In particular, the Panel notes the Code of Practice might be taken to require that a minister of religion from a smaller or emerging religious body must agree to a form of ceremony proposed by the couple to be married that does not align with the particular rites of the religious body.

I had not been aware of this problem, but clearly it was a good idea to clarify this point. Under s 45(1) the form of service to be used by all ministers of religion is whatever is “recognised as sufficient for the purpose by the religious body or organisation of which he or she is a minister” (whether or not the minister is from a “recognised denomination”.) But the official Code of Practice contained in Sched 2 to the Marriage Regulations, cl 5(a), may have been taken to suggest otherwise.

The Government response to the confusion about when ministers of religion can choose not to undertake same-sex weddings is that in fact they have already now dealt with the problem!

In July 2018, the Attorney General’s Department published the revised ‘Guidelines on the Marriage Act 1961 for authorised celebrants – July 2018’ based on feedback received and in line with the Panel’s recommendation.

The July 2018 guidelines now have a section (11.8) which clarifies the obligations of ministers in relation to solemnisation. The guidelines are also quite clear that a minister of religion must use their religion’s form of ceremony:

Ministers of religion of recognised denominations and Commonwealth-registered celebrants solemnising religious marriages may use any form of ceremony recognised as sufficient for the purpose by the religious body or organisation of which they are a minister. This means that the content of the ceremony and its form must have the formal approval and recognition of the religious body or organisation (usually through its governing body).

The Government has also committed to amending the Marriage Regulations so that the Code of Practice is less misleading on the “form of service” issue.

It is worth noting one area where the Panel disagreed with changing the laws relating to celebration of same-sex marriages. The situation is that those who are celebrants who are not “ministers of religion”, and who did not move over to the category of “religious marriage celebrant” in the short transition period after the changes commenced, are not able to decline to solemnise same sex marriages without being accused of “sexual orientation discrimination”. (See this post outlining the situation.)

The Panel was asked to consider supporting the religious freedom of so-called “civil” celebrants by allowing those who had religious concerns about solemnising same sex marriage to decline doing so. But at 1.327 they commented:

[T]he Panel does not consider it appropriate that civil celebrants who are not ministers of religion should be entitled to refuse to solemnise same-sex marriages unless their registration as a celebrant pre-dated the Marriage Amendment Act and they chose to register as a religious marriage celebrant.

The main reason offered is that “civil celebrants are performing a civil, rather than religious, function”. With respect, this is not a very persuasive argument- the word “civil” as a description of celebrants is not authorised by the legislation, but has simply been used as a bureaucratic definition. Public servants do not automatically give up their religious freedom, as I have argued in previous comments on these issues. But the Panel seems to disagree.

Recommendation 12: religious schools and same sex weddings

Recommendation 12 is:

The Commonwealth should progress legislative amendments to make it clear that religious schools are not required to make available their facilities, or to provide goods or services, for any marriage, provided that the refusal:

Conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the body, or

Is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

My response: the recommendation is a sensible one.

This recommendation is designed to complement s 47B of the Marriage Act1961, by applying it to “religious schools” as well as to “bodies established for religious purposes”. Section 47B provides:

Bodies established for religious purposes may refuse to make facilities available or provide goods or services

(1) A body established for religious purposes may refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services, for the purposes of the solemnisation of a marriage, or for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage, if the refusal:

(b) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

It would have seemed likely to me that a “religious school” would be a “body established for religious purposes”. As there is some doubt, however, there is no harm in this recommendation.

The Panel identifies a possible ambiguity as to whether religious schools are in a different category under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 from general religious bodies. (The relevance of the SDA 1984 to the Marriage Act 1961 is that s 47B(4) gives the phrase “body established for religious purposes” the same meaning as it bears in s 37 of the SDA.)

1.325 The term ‘body established for religious purposes’ is not defined in the Sex Discrimination Act. It is arguable that a faith-based school, other than a school established for the purposes of training or educating persons seeking ordination or appointment as religious officers, may not fall within the meaning of a ‘body established for a religious purpose’ for the purposes of section 37. This is because the Sex Discrimination Act treats educational institutions established for a religious purpose, such as an Anglican or Islamic primary school, as a separate category of institutions with its own exemption clause in section 38. Whether a given institution is capable of falling under both section 37 and section 38 is likely to turn on the structure and governance of the institution in question. An educational institution established for religious purposes may therefore not be able to avail itself of the exemption in section 47B of the Marriage Act.

The view that the institutions referred to in sections 37 and 38 of the SDA do not overlap is by no means obvious, it should be said. Indeed, that there may be an overlap is the reason that recent proposals to amend s 38 of the SDA have also included an “anti-avoidance” amendment to s 37.

The reason for inclusion of a separate “schools” provision in s 38 are somewhat obscure, but reference to the debates in Parliament when the SDA was enacted suggest that some were worried that a “traditional” private school which wanted to maintain “Christian values”, but was no longer formally associated with a church, would not be protected under s 37 as a “body established for religious purposes”. In any case, the proposal that religious educational institutions receive separate protection from being required to allow same-sex weddings seems a reasonable one.

Conclusion (for now)

This post has already become a bit long; I aim to come back soon in Part 3 to consider the reminder of the recommendations (Recs 13-14, 16-20).

The Ruddock Report has landed! (Part 1)

The long-awaited Religious Freedom Review: Report of the Expert Panel (chaired by the Hon Philip Ruddock) has now been released publicly, along with the formal Government Response. After the prior leaking of its 20 recommendations there were no major surprises as to the final conclusion, but there is much interesting background to the recommendations (and in one or two cases the full Report seems to have a significant impact on how one should read the language of the recommendations.) It is also important to see the announced intentions of the LNP Government as to how they will respond.

In this first post in response to the full Report I will comment mainly on recommendations 1 & 5-8 and recommendation 15, with the other recommendations to be left for part 2 or later.

First, it seems to be sensible (though somewhat out of order) to summarise the Government response as announced today. In broad terms, they have agreed “in principle” to 15 of the 20 recommendations. The other 5 are being referred for further consideration to the Australian Law Reform Commission. To quote from the Government Response at p 5:

The manner in which the Government will implement the recommendations of the Religious Freedom Review falls into three categories:

1. Fourteen recommendations to be implemented as soon as practicable (being recommendations 2 to 4, 9 to 14 and 16 to 20);

2. One recommendation to be implemented following consultation to seek bipartisan support for the Religious Discrimination Bill (being recommendation 15); and

3. Five recommendations which require further consideration (being recommendation 1 and recommendations 5 to 8).

In this post I will analyse recommendations 1 & 5-8 and 15 and provide the Government response and my preferred view on what the response should have been.

Recommendations 1 and 5-8 are those which have caused an extended political controversy since the leaking of the recommendations just prior to the Wentworth By-election. We can now read the Report and see the context for them.

Broadly, the most contentious issues arise over the way that laws forbidding discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, and pregnancy, interact with the freedom of religious schools to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs (which often teach that the only appropriate context for sexual activity is the marriage of a man and a woman.) Current law, especially s 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, allows a faith-based educational institution to “discriminate” in these circumstances.

I won’t rehearse in any detail the arguments and political debates that have surrounded these issues in Australia over the last few months. Those who are interested and haven’t done so yet can read about these matters starting here and then moving forward through most of the recent posts on this blog. The starting point was the leaking of the Ruddock recommendations, and in particular Rec. 7, which starts:

The Commonwealth should amend the Sex Discrimination Act to provide that religious schools may discriminate in relation to students on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status provided that…

It is now apparent from the Report, as it had always been to anyone who knew the prior law, that Rec. 7 was never intended to introduce a radical new avenue for discrimination, but was actually intended to limit an existing right of religious schools. In para 1.273, for example, the Panel commented:

the Panel believes the [existing] exceptions should be limited by the requirement that the discrimination be in accordance with a published policy which is grounded in the religious doctrines of the school

Unfortunately, when summarising its comments in a specific recommendation, the nuance that this was a limit on an existing provision was not captured, and the leaking of the recommendation on its own gave a very misleading impression of the discussion in the Report.

There is probably not much point in exploring the details of the recommendation around gay students in religious schools, however, as at this point the Ruddock Report seems to have been overtaken by events to some extent. In its Response, at p 20, the Government notes:

In this process, the Government committed to going further than the terms of recommendation 8 of the Review, and undertook to remove all of the exemptions contained in subsection 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act … During this process, the Government sought the Opposition’s agreement to a minor amendment to the existing Sex Discrimination Act section dealing with how decision makers are routinely required to assess the reasonableness of rules of general application (such as workplace rules and rules designed to govern student conduct in educational institutions)

(I think the reference above to Rec 8 is intended to be a reference to Rec 7, which was the one dealing with s 38(3) issues.)

By the end of the Parliamentary year, a Bill introduced into the Senate by Senator Wong had been referred to a Senate committee for further discussion, and a Bill proposed by the Prime Minister (which seems to have reflected Government amendments to Senator Wong’s Bill) had been suggested, but not accepted by the Opposition.

The Government Response indicates that its preference now is to remove this issue of students, along with the recommendations in relation to gay teachers in Rec. 5, and some related amendments, to a separate inquiry to be conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission. At p 21:

Accordingly, the Government will consult with the States and Territories on the terms of a potential reference to the ALRC to consider recommendations 1 and 5 to 8 of the Review with a view to settling upon a legislative mechanism that would, on a nationally consistent basis, achieve the twin purposes of limiting or removing altogether (if practicable) legislative exemptions to prohibitions on discrimination based on a person’s identity, while also protecting the right of religious institutions to reasonably conduct themselves in a way consistent with their religious ethos.

Whether this proposed response will obviate the need for further debate on Senator Wong’s Bill is unclear. The Government in effect controls neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives at the moment, and Parliament is scheduled to return on 12 February 2019 for a two-week sitting before the Budget is presented and a Federal election is to be held. In those circumstances I, for one, would not like to predict what might happen! But the Senate Inquiry into Senator Wong’s Bill is apparently still going ahead, and is receiving submissions until 21 January 2019. I have previously indicated my concerns about the ALP-sponsored Bill and will be conveying those to the Committee in due course (along with my concerns about the proposed Government amendments.)

Still, it seems worthwhile to record my responses to the recommendations.

Recommendation 1

Those jurisdictions that retain exceptions or exemptions in their anti-discrimination laws for religious bodies with respect to race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status should review them, having regard to community expectations.

My response: Agree generally with the suggestion to remove exemptions re race, disability and intersex. (See below, however, for complexity on the “race” issue for some groups.) But I am not convinced about the “pregnancy” ground being removed. Except for one notable historical example, a woman does not become pregnant without sexual intercourse. If she is single, that will usually be against Biblical norms. While religious schools will always want to provide support and care in this difficult context, they should be allowed to make such decisions in accordance with their religious ethos. Supported for three grounds, opposed for pregnancy.

Recommendation 5

The Commonwealth should amend the Sex Discrimination Act1984 to provide that religious schools can discriminate in relation to the employment of staff, and the engagement of contractors, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status provided that:

The discrimination is founded in the precepts of the religion.

The school has a publicly available policy outlining its position in relation to the matter and explaining how the policy will be enforced.

The school provides a copy of the policy in writing to employees and contractors and prospective employees and contractors.

My response: It is important to note that the ability to select who will be employed for, or work for, religious schools on the basis of their agreement or otherwise with the religious ethos of the school may involve significant issues to do with sexual behaviour and gender identity. The Cth SDA s 38(1) and s 38(2) already allows such selection on this basis. The proposed change here is to limit this right so that additional conditions apply.

(1) The condition that a decision must be “founded in the precepts of the religion” is different to the current condition, which is that the decision is made “in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed”. The Report offers no reason for the change of language. The result may be to hand over to a secular court or tribunal the task of determining what the precepts of a religion “actually” require. On the other hand, it would be acceptable if it simply meant that the decision must be a “good faith” attempt to apply the religion as interpreted by the school, and not a “sham” to allow dismissal etc for ulterior motives. It would be better to clarify this by retaining the wording of the current law, noted above.

(2) The school is to publicise its policy on these issues. This is a good idea, so that those working for the school are aware of the school’s policy. No doubt most religious schools already do this. Supported.

(3) The policy to be provided to current and prospective workers. Again, this seems sensible and is supported.

Recommendation 6

Jurisdictions should abolish any exceptions to anti-discrimination laws that provide for discrimination by religious schools in employment on the basis of race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status. Further, jurisdictions should ensure that any exceptions for religious schools do not permit discrimination against an existing employee solely on the basis that the employee has entered into a marriage.

My response:

(1) On the general question of exemptions related to “race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status”, see my comments above on Rec 1. The issue in relation to race is raised by the example of the UK decision of E, R (on the application of) v Governing Body of JFS & Anor[2009] UKSC 15, where an Orthodox Jewish school wanted to apply an admission policy based on its definition of “Jewishness”, which included descent from an Orthodox Jewish mother. The UK Supreme Court held that such a policy was racially discriminatory and unlawful. In general careful thought needs to be given to the application of the law to faiths where physical descent may play a part in faith membership. I also remain concerned that pregnancy not be removed as a criterion in all cases, as noted above.

(2) The second part of this recommendation seems odd. As it stands, it would seem to have the effect of removing the ability of, say, a Roman Catholic school to dismiss an employee who had remarried after a divorce not recognised by the Roman Catholic church. It would also make it unlawful for a Christian school to sanction an employee who, contrary to a clearly publicised prior policy (see above rec 5) now proclaims that they are same sex oriented by entering a same sex marriage. This is opposed if it means that entry into a marriage could never be a legitimate ground for decision-making by a religious school.

It has to be said that the paragraph of the Report explaining this provision is somewhat hard to follow. Para 1.249 reads as follows:

In the Panel’s view, existing employees who marry someone of the same sex should not have adverse action taken against them for the sole reason that a person has entered into a same-sex marriage. The Panel can see no reason for any distinction being made between a staff member who is in a same-sex partnership, and one who is married to a same-sex partner under the Marriage Act. Similarly, the Panel can see no reason for a distinction being made between a heterosexual person who is in a de facto relationship or partnership, and someone who is married

I must confess I find it hard to understand the points being made here. The central issue seems to be that there should be no “distinction being made between a staff member who is in a same-sex partnership, and one who is married to a same-sex partner under the Marriage Act”. So there is a “moral equivalence” between being in a de facto homosexual relationship and being “married” to a same sex partner? The blunt truth is that a faith school with orthodox Christian beliefs, say, about the inappropriate nature of sex outside a man/woman marriage would agree, but would say that both circumstances give rise to a case where a staff member is no longer living in accordance with the faith framework of the school. Is the Panel simply saying that the mere act of going through a wedding ceremony should not be a ground for discipline? On the logic of treating these relationships in the same way, a school may say, it is not the ceremony that is the issue, it is the homosexual relationship which we see as inappropriate.

Nor can I see the validity (from the perspective of a Christian school) of the comment in para 1.249 that there is “no reason for a distinction being made between a heterosexual person who is in a de facto relationship or partnership, and someone who is married.” From the orthodox Christian view, there is a world of difference between those who have sex outside marriage (known as adultery or fornication), and those who do not. Of course in a situation where someone had been living immorally with a person of the opposite sex, and then got married, it is hard to imagine any faith school which would regard that action as a ground for detrimental treatment. Such an action would actually be celebrated!

Perhaps there is a subtle point here that I am missing. But as it stands I do not support this part of Rec 6.

Recommendation 7

The Commonwealth should amend the Sex Discrimination Act to provide that religious schools may discriminate in relation to students on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status provided that:

The discrimination is founded in the precepts of the religion.

The school has a publicly available policy outlining its position in relation to the matter.

The school provides a copy of the policy in writing to prospective students and their parents at the time of enrolment and to existing students and their parents at any time the policy is updated.

The school has regard to the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in its conduct.

My response: I have commented on these issues above. This recommendation is the one that generated recent controversy and which in general seems to have been overtaken by events. To be clear, however, I was always concerned about the “founded on the precepts” clause for reasons noted above in my comments on Rec. 5. The publicity provisions seem reasonable. But the final condition is a bit odd.

Of course, any school ought to have the “best interests of the child” as its primary concern. But a Christian school will often take the view that the best interests of the child involve them, for example, not engaging in homosexual activity. Again, the issue arises, who is to determine “best interests”? A concern is that external psychological reports, for example, will be produced to counter the religious commitments of the school. (The Panel mentions this matter in passing in para 1.270, but does not discuss the content of the phrase.) On balance this final criterion is opposed, not in substance but because the process for determining the answer to the question is unclear.

Recommendation 8

Jurisdictions should abolish any exceptions to anti-discrimination laws that provide for discrimination by religious schools with respect to students on the basis of race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status.

My response: this recommendation raises similar issues to those already discussed above in connection with Recs 1 and 6. It is directed to the States and Territories rather than the Commonwealth. For reasons noted previously I generally support the removal of exemptions based on race (with caveats noted previously), disability and intersex status. But I opposeremoving pregnancy as a matter that may be taken into account.

Recommendation 15: Religious Discrimination Act

To conclude this first post on the Report, let me commend the Panel for the sensible recommendation in favour of a law forbidding discrimination on the grounds of religion. The recommendation reads:

The Commonwealth should amend the Racial Discrimination Act1975, or enact a Religious Discrimination Act, to render it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s ‘religious belief or activity’, including on the basis that a person does not hold any religious belief. In doing so, consideration should be given to providing for appropriate exceptions and exemptions, including for religious bodies, religious schools and charities.

My response: I agree, though I think that clearly this should be done as a stand-alone piece of legislation, not as an amendment to the existing law on racial discrimination.

This is a sensible way of recognising the importance of this fundamental human right to religious freedom. It is not the only thing that could be done, but it does represent a good step forward. We do not want people being fired from their jobs, or denied public services, because they hold minority religiously based views or practices which do no harm to others.

Appropriate “exceptions and exemptions, including for religious bodies, religious schools and charities” are supported, but with the caveat that it would be better to refer to these as “balancing provisions”. In the context three types of such provisions are needed:

(a) To balance the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds, with other fundamental rights such as bodily integrity and free movement. It should not be unlawful, for example, to decline to employ someone who has advocated use of violence against unbelievers, even if their advocacy is religiously based.

(b) To balance out the rights of different religions not to be required to support other religious worldviews. A church should be entitled to not employ someone as a youth worker who comes from a different religious background.

(c) To allow religious groups to control their own internal affairs. Under international law, for example, it is well established that a member of a religious group cannot claim to be discriminated against by another member of the same group, because they differ on doctrine or practice. The remedy for someone who does not like the way their own group is being run, is to leave that group. This view has been taken in Australia, in Iliafi v The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐Day Saints Australia [2014] FCAFC 26, in the European decision in Sindicatul “Pastorul Cel Bun” v Romania(2014) 58 EHHR 10, and the recent Canadian Supreme Court decision in Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall, 2018 SCC 26.

The Government Response to this recommendation has been very positive:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Australian Government will introduce a Religious Discrimination Bill into the Parliament which will provide for comprehensive protection against discrimination based on religious belief or activity, as recommended by the Panel.

Government Response, p 17

They rightly point out that crafting the law will require some care, and they propose to provide a draft law (apparently in the New Year) and to seek consensus from other parties to provide an agreed approach. They have also commented, however, that they do not propose to restrict speech in this area through introducing anything equivalent to s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. In my view that is a good idea- see here for a paper on “religious free speech” pointing out why broadly-defined “religious vilification” laws are not a good idea.

In particular, they have gone even further and resolved to work on the problems that have been seen in some current laws:

[T]he Government will consult with the States and Territories on the terms of a potential reference to the ALRC to give further consideration to how best to amend current Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation to prohibit the commencement of any legal or administrative action, pursuant to State-based anti-discrimination legislation analogous to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, that seeks to claim offence, insult or humiliation because a person or body expresses a view of marriage as it was defined in the Marriage Act before being amended in 2017Government Response, p 17

It seems clear that in particular this recommendation is designed to respond to the litigation initiated against Archbishop Porteous in Tasmania, previously discussed here. Such a move seems very commendable.

Conclusion

There is a lot in the Report, and this post has only commented on some of the most obvious issues. I hope in a future post (or posts!) to outline the other recommendations and my responses to them.

Why these nations rejected the UN Migration Pact

Update: since this post was written, 164 countries have signed the The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, although Brazil plans to pull out in January. Countries who rejected the pact include the US, Australia, Chile, Austria, Bulgaria, Israel, Hungary, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

This article was published on Bill Muehlenberg’s website as “The UN Migration Pact.”

World leaders are meeting in Morocco as I write this, discussing a UN pact on migration. It is already a highly contentious issue, with many countries not going to the conference, and many not signing up for the pact. A Wiki piece puts it this way:

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) is a “intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, [that covers] all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner”. The United Nations conference to adopt the compact will be held in Marrakesh, Morocco, on 10–11 December 2018. The Global Compact is not an international treaty, and it will not be formally binding under international law. However, as with similar U.N. agreements, it is a politically binding commitment.

Joining Chile, the United States, Australia and Israel, eight European countries have announced they will refuse to participate at the Marrakesh conference and endorse the agreement, including Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland, Croatia, Latvia. Italy, Bulgaria and Belgium may join them in dissent.

One description of it makes it sound so benign and beneficial: “The non-binding UN pact is aimed at making migration safe and orderly. It addresses issues such as how to protect people who migrate, how to integrate them into new countries and how to return them to their home countries.”

But it has real problems. Let me discuss some of these. The main concern is that it is a pro-migration pact. However, many nations are aware of the harms of migration – certainly open-slather migration. Many nations see this as yet more globalist baloney, and more threats to national sovereignty.

Perhaps the best way to make this case is to let the various nations themselves explain why they are not interested. Europe is especially at the forefront of all this, so let me look at how the continent is reacting, utilising the helpful Voice of Europe website. Let me start with Hungary. A recent article said this:

Hungary officially notified the United Nations on Tuesday that it is quitting the approval process of the Global Compact for Migration, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said. It has become clear that differences between Hungary’s position on migration and the UN’s approach are irreconcilable, Szijjarto told a press conference. “Hungary will maintain its position and no global package can change that”, he added.

“We see migration processes from a different perspective,” he said. The UN believes that migration is unavoidable, beneficial and should be supported, while Hungary considers it a danger to Hungary and Europe, he said, adding that the UN’s aim was to encourage migration whereas Hungary’s goal was to stop it.

The Global Compact for Migration includes some agreeable targets, such as taking action against human smugglers, but its effect will be contrary even to these, he said. A document that encourages migration will only benefit human smugglers because they can then convince more people to set off, telling them that they will be accepted in line with the global compact, Szijjarto said. Hungary’s position is that it would be unnatural to change the population of the continent and global efforts should instead be made to stop migration, he said.

France, which is in flames at the moment with its climate change taxes and out of control immigration, has many leaders saying no, including Marine Le Pen:

The leader of French political party, the National Rally has lashed out against President Macron for signing the UN Migration Pact. “We ask the president of the Republic, who is on the verge of signing the Marrakesh compact with a glorious disregard for consequences to renounce this act of betrayal.

“If this text were to be signed, let me make it clear that the Rassemblement National would fight each measure there in every inch of the way,” Le Pen said at a press conference end November. Le Pen, who is a lawyer, explained the most important parts of the compact.

“What it comes down to, in violation of all the principles the French Republic stands for, is delivering the country into the hands of parallel societies of alien origin by granting diasporas… “full legal recognition, and then give them the means of public action and their own financial capacity such as the creation of investment funds for those diasporas,” she added.

Austrian Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache defends his country’s choice to pullout of the UN migration pact saying he’s only concerned with what is best for Austrians. “We are only responsible to our Austrian population as government officials. Austrian sovereignty has top priority for us, this must be preserved and protected,” according to the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), Kronen Zeitung reports.

Mr. Strache said that the migration pact would also create a possibility that “people who are unlawfully coming to Austria are legally compliant.” “In the government’s program, we have promised to stop illegal migration, to protect citizens’ safety, and to protect the borders,” he said and added that voters would question the government if they reneged on that promise by signing the pact.

The petition demanding that the UK government REJECT the United Nations Global Migration Compact has already surpassed the Parliamentary requirement for debate. The petition went from 10,000 signatures 11 days ago to passing the 100,000 mark today. Leave.eu among others have been promoting the petition.

As of yet, there has been no response from the government, which falls in line with their previous record of signing such things without the consent of the British public (Lisbon and Maastricht for example). The list of countries refusing to sign the compact is growing amidst global public opposition to the proposed ideology that all migration is a human right, therefore removing the possibility of any being ‘illegal’. It also makes any criticism of migration as criminally punishable ‘hate speech’.

Around 1000 Swedes gathered outside Parliament in Stockholm to protest against the UN Migration Pact on Saturday.

Plenty of Swedish flags, placards and yellow vests were seen. Children participated as well. “We are not extremists. We are ordinary Swedes”, shouted the protesters.

“It’s not about political colours, it’s about the people, one of the speakers”, journalist Katerina Janouch stated. “I am here for the 9-year-old girl who was raped and beaten in a junk room. I am here for all the women who no longer dare go out.

“I am here for the poor elderly who paid tax their whole lives and now are forced to starve. I am here for the homeless. I am here for those who don’t get what the social contract promises.” According to Janouch, all Swedes, regardless of political affiliation, should participate in the demonstrations and protest against the politics in Sweden.

“We don’t need more division in this country. It is the ones in power that want us to turn against each other. We need to unite. I want the Swedish people to stand together against the abuse of power that’s going on in Parliament. “We will not give up”, she continued.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Tuesday that Israel will not be signing the United Nations’ global migration pact set to be signed next month in Marrakech, Morocco. Israel must protect its borders. The Prime Minister said in a statement: “I instructed the Foreign Ministry to announce that Israel won’t participate [in the Marrakech gathering] and won’t sign the migration pact”.

He further states: “We have a duty to guard against illegal infiltrators.” The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is due to be formally approved at the 11-12 December meeting in Marrakech. Jewish Nation-State Law requires the government “to stand up for a clear migration policy that protects our borders from illegal infiltrators.”

As President Trump said when speaking before the UN on 25 September, “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens,” and Gianluca Savoini, a member of Italy’s Lega party, has said much the same on Friday. He believes that Italy should not sign the UN Global Migration Pact that threatens the country’s sovereignty and the nation’s cultural and religious identity.

Poland’s Interior Minister Joachim Brudzinsk said on Tuesday during a meeting of the G6 interior ministers in Lyon that Warsaw should not approve the UN migration deal. Quoted by the Interior Ministry’s twitter account stating it was a threat to the national security: “The UN migration agreement is not in line with the priorities of the Polish government, which are ensuring security of Polish citizens and maintaining control over the migration flows”. His opinion is that the draft UN migration deal would put Poland’s security at risk, and may encourage illegal migration.

The political group Europe of Nations and Freedom said this about the pact:

MEP Marcel de Graaff, Co-President of the ENF and leader of the Party for Freedom in the European Parliament, held a press conference regarding the UN Migration Compact of Marrakesh. In his speech de Graaff warns for the UN’s plans with the compact as it will make criticising migration a criminal offence and will lead to legalising mass migration. The Europe of Nations and Freedom co-President calls it “a coup d’etat of pro-migration liberal globalists, which will greatly benefit multinationals”.

This UN Migration Compact is an attempt to make hijra (Islamic migration) a human right, while at the same time undermining a nation’s sovereignty. All Western nations should withdraw unless their goal is to establish Sharia. The seeds of this UN Compact were planted back in the 70’s when the Economic European Community (which later became the European Union) and the Arab League established their vision for “Eurabia”.

The number of countries refusing to get involved in the Pact is growing. We will have to see what happens over the next two days in Marrakesh. Sadly many nations will still sign up, although many less than first expected:

More than 150 countries will join a United Nations conference to adopt a global pact to better handle migrant flows, a senior U.N. official said on Sunday, less than the number that initially worked on the plan. In July, all 193 U.N. members except the United States finalised the so-called Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration to better handle migration. Since then, the text has come under fire from European politicians who say it could increase immigration. At least six European Union members – mostly in formerly Communist Eastern Europe – have shunned the accord.www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/more-than-150-governments-to-adopt-un-migration-pact-in-morocco-11016276

I will add any new and significant developments to this story as they come along.

Bill Muehlenberg

]]>https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/why-these-nations-rejected-the-un-migration-pact/feed/029619Social engineering evident in Victorian lawhttps://www.thefreedomsproject.com/social-engineering-evident-in-victorian-law/
https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/social-engineering-evident-in-victorian-law/#respondMon, 10 Dec 2018 09:16:40 +0000https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/?p=29612The seven “experts” appointed to advise on the implementation of assisted suicide have come up with a how-to guide for the other states.

Social engineering evident in Victorian law

Branka van der Linden writes on Victoria’s dystopian assisted-suicide law. This article first appeared on the HOPE: No Euthanasia website and is reproduced here with permission.

The architects of Victoria’s euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation have joined together to write a playbook for other states wanting to push through euthanasia and other “social change” laws.

The seven “experts” appointed by the Victorian Health Minister to advise on the implementation of euthanasia and assisted suicide are now using that “expertise” to show others how to get public support for “changes to dominant policy and community practices.”

Despite being appointed to the advisory panel because of their experience in neurosurgery, palliative care, nursing and disability advocacy, their “how to” guide for social engineering speaks more about community mobilisation for radical social change.

A handy guide for social engineering in many forms, the article explains how a move to make death:

a medical event rather than a life event;

an individual matter rather than a communal one; and

a secular rather than religious experience,

can enable a push for legalised killing.

The authors also describe how a focus on the individual rather than the community played well into an anti-paternalistic, anti-authoritarian sentiment that rejected the traditional “top-down” approach to health policy. They state: “This change represents a major shift in the exercise of individual autonomy of over that of the state.”

The authors go on to explain how a long process of public consultation can ensure everyone has an opportunity to express their views (even though it appears the outcome was largely pre-determined.) In one instance, perhaps revealing their hand, the authors laud the work of public and political campaigns from pro-euthanasia lobby groups as “serving to balance the efforts of detractors.”

Again indicating that their role may have been more about campaigning than advising the government, the authors write about the importance of the media training they all received.

They conclude reiterating their social engineering aim: “In documenting the process… the authors hope to assist others in seeking to engage in similar social change.”

How can the public be confident that the Victorian laws contain adequate safeguards if those responsible for advising on them appear to care more about campaigning than anything else?

Nauru Gov’t to Kerryn Phelps: “Get your facts right”

While virtue-signalling progressives hammer on about conditions in detention centres, and try to force Australian taxpayers to foot the bill for welfare-hopping migrants, the Nauru Government has issued a wake-up call. Published on its website on October 24, 2018, is this statement which hones in on the unscrupulous behaviour of many ‘asylum seekers.’

The kinds of activity mentioned in the statement will come as no surprise to those of us who are very concerned about the UN’s current push for mandatory open-arms policies on migrants and refugees. Comfortable Christians who want to pin this latest social justice badge on their hats would do well to think through the implications of allowing migrants to roam about until they find the most generous foreign welfare system, forcing sovereign nations to advertise their benefits and social programmes on purpose-built websites. For that’s exactly what the UN’s Compacts aim to do.

Statement from Government of Nauru – RE reports of refugee and asylum seeker / children medical transfers

We refer to a report in the Australian media today about a refugee who allegedly poisoned a child in an attempt to be transferred to Australia.

The Government condemns the actions of refugee and asylum seekers parents who put their children at risk by intentionally hurting them, ordering them not to eat or drink, or encouraging them to self-harm, in order to influence legal proceedings or create a medical emergency so that they can be taken to Australia.

As we have stated many times, this has happened and continues to happen, and those who deny this are misinformed or simply don’t want to admit the truth.

We also note untrue reports on ABC TV and in other media outlets in recent times alleging that the Government of Nauru has stopped the evacuation of sick refugees and asylum seekers.

The Government of Nauru has not, and does not, prevent the evacuation of any person whose genuine medical needs cannot be met on the island. Any suggestions to the contrary are false as are any claims that Nauru has stopped air transfers.

There have been cases where families have refused medical evacuation for their family member because they were told they would be taken to Taiwan for urgent care, rather than Australia. Some families will also refuse medical evacuation for a sick family member unless all members of the family can be evacuated at the same time.

Delays can also occur with medical evacuations due to child protection matters where parents or guardians have been harming children, coaching or allowing children to self-harm, resulting in protection orders being issued against these individuals.

Other delays have resulted from cases where an individual accompanying the patient has been charged with serious offences or is being investigated for offences including child sexual abuse, child neglect and drug offences.

Those who advocate for all children to be removed from Nauru should be aware of these facts before making unfounded accusations.

Nauru continues to place a high priority on the welfare of all refugees and asylum seekers including the children, and we work closely with medical personnel and the Australian Government to ensure all receive the highest level of care.

Notice that the statement doesn’t deny there are any problems? No, it acknowledges that there are many serious problems on Nauru, but none of them is due to inaction by the Australian government. On the contrary, it is the parents of the innocent children, who are to blame for atrocities perpetrated against them. Those same parents dragged their children through an illegal and dangerous passage to a foreign country, exposing them to who-knows-what kind of abuse, and are now willing to even encourage those children to self-harm, if that means getting a toe in the door of the Australian welfare system.

Progressive politicians like Kerryn Phelps, Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen need to check their facts before rushing through legislation which rewards amoral parents for inflicting suffering on their own children for the purposes of illegal immigration.

Not convinced? Still think detention centres are hell on earth? Check out this interview with a former security guard from Manus Island. Things aren’t always as they seem, especially when it comes to policies that seek to undermine the sovereignty of western liberal democracies.

]]>https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/nauru-govt-to-kerryn-phelps-get-your-facts-right/feed/029607SDA amendments referred to another enquiryhttps://www.thefreedomsproject.com/sda-amendments-referred-to-another-enquiry/
https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/sda-amendments-referred-to-another-enquiry/#respondFri, 07 Dec 2018 08:04:52 +0000https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/?p=29598No changes to the Sex Discrimination Act this year: another committee has been formed to look at religious freedom.

SDA amendments referred to another inquiry

A brief note about the Sex Discrimination Act amendments which have the subject of a number of recent posts. The House of Representatives has now adjourned for the year without a Government Bill being introduced to make any changes concerning religious schools and discrimination. So no binding changes will be made this year. On 6 December the Senate referred the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 February 2019. Submissions to the Committee can be made at the website linked here, and must be provided by 11 January 2019:

The Exclusion Zone contagion is spreading

Queensland

Exclusion-zones went into force yesterday in Queensland, along with the state’s new act that moved abortion into the health code. Queensland is the fourth Australian state to enact the zones – this includes New South Wales, where abortion is still technically illegal; both territories also have the so-called ‘Safe-Access’ zones.

Pro-lifers who wish to pray outside abortion mills and offer help to the women entering them will now have to stand 150m away from the entrance or risk huge fines and potential incarceration. Graham Preston, the prominent activist who is one party in the High Court challenge to exclusion-zones, has been a vocal opponent to the zones and to the state government’s hypocrisy in reforming abortion law. He drew attention to a clause in the Queensland government’s recent Human Rights bill: (taken from Graham’s email newsletter)

Whatever other issues this Bill may have, it is certainly breathtakingly hypocritical. The preamble talks about the Parliament of Queensland recognising:

“1 The inherent dignity and worth of all human beings.

2 The equal and inalienable human rights of all human beings.”

Then there are clauses

“16 Right to lifeEvery person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life

26 Protection of families and children(2) Every child has the right, without discrimination, to the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child.”

But the hypocrisy becomes clear when you get to clause 106:

Act does not affect laws about termination of pregnancyNothing in this Act affects any law relating to termination of pregnancy or the killing of an unborn child” (!!)

This Bill excludes only one group – and without any attempt at justification – from the circle of human rights protection, the children before birth. Clearly the drafters of this human rights Bill recognised that the recently passed Termination of Pregnancy Act would contravene the human rights of the unborn child so they avoided that problem by simply declaring that the unborn are excluded from the Bill.

In my submission on the Bill (only a few weeks were given for people to make submissions and that period has now closed) I asked what respect would anyone have if in 1850 in Alabama a Human Rights Bill had been put forward that specifically left laws allowing slavery to go untouched. It is equally absurd that this Queensland human rights bill specifically leaves laws allowing the killing of unborn babies to go untouched. The Bill must be rejected.

South Australia

Apparently, now that abortion is legal in Queensland, South Australia is feeling left out and wants to ‘get with the times.’ Greens LC, Tammy Franks, introduced a bill today that would remove abortion from the criminal code, and – you guessed it – create 150m exclusion zones around abortion mills to ensure that no child is rescued from abortion. Ironically, Ms Franks claims that reforming abortion law will mean that abortion becomes ‘regulated just like any other medical procedure.’ But nothing could be further from the truth, on two counts: one, abortion is the least regulated medical procedure. Women aren’t given the complete picture about what abortion entails – there is no ultrasound, never a complete disclosure of the emotional after-effects and doctors don’t provide a complete discussion of coercion or of alternatives to aborting their patients’ babies. And two, abortion is never an ordinary medical procedure. As Irish TD, Carol Nolan says, “Real healthcare does not have a victim.”

Ms Franks believes SA’s laws are ‘out of date’, since women must have lived in the state for two months before being able to access an abortion. Franks claims this disadvantages international students. One wonders how high the numbers of young women in this situation must be, to warrant a complete overhaul of abortion law. One wonders, also, how prevalent are the incidents of ‘harassment’ and ‘intimidation’ of women entering abortion mills or whether, as in other states and countries around the world, there is little evidence of that kind of activity.

In fact, it was only in May of this year that SA’s Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Stephen Wade, said:“I am not aware of any case of that happening”[in South Australia] and “nobody has raised their concerns that they have been threatened or impeded as a health worker.”

Don’t think the medical world is unbiased

It would appear that there is little hope of unbiased reporting to be had anywhere – even in medical journals. The November edition of AustralianDoctor, sent to me by a supporter, featured an article on our High Court challenge to exclusion-zones, and how this poses a threat to concerned abortionists everywhere. Concerned – perhaps not so much for the welfare of their patients, and certainly not for the welfare of their patients’ offspring – but for their declining revenues when mothers accept help from sidewalk advocates.

The article included a lengthy statement from abortionist Philip Goldstone, medical director of Marie Stopes Australia, who claimed that he had been abused many times by pro-life activists. Goldstone claimed that he had been told “on a weekly basis” that he was going to hell. He also claimed, wrongly that pro-lifers believe abortion to be an “unforgivable sin.” This is probably the most damaging kind of propaganda out there: women and men, and even abortionists, need to hear that the sin of abortion can be forgiven. All that is necessary is repentance and a firm commitment to sin no more.

The article contained no statements from pro-life medical professionals, or post-abortion counsellors or medical staff who had cared for mothers who changed their minds about having an abortion. Instead, Goldstone was free to vent his spleen over unproven accusations of verbal abuse by sidewalk advocates. He reiterated one of his favourite, but incorrect, analogies – that women who received breast enhancement are no different from women seeking to have their children killed.

Goldstone fails to point out that the former is merely a matter of a woman’s choice, whereas the latter procedure involves three parties: the mother, the father and their pre-born child. But then, it’s hardly surprising that someone who kills babies for a living would completely dehumanise those babies by comparing them to a piece of silicone.

Kathy Clubb

Do you want to do more to end abortion?

Get 20 simple actions for sharing the pro-life message on social media with this free e-book. Do your part to make abortion unthinkable using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Youtube or your favourite social media channel.

Success!

]]>https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/the-exclusion-zone-contagion-is-spreading/feed/029587Irish politician: “Real healthcare does not have a victim”https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/irish-politician-real-healhcare-does-not-have-a-victim/
https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/irish-politician-real-healhcare-does-not-have-a-victim/#respondMon, 03 Dec 2018 20:09:42 +0000https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/?p=29561Pro-life politicians are facing opposition in trying to mitigate the impact of Ireland's disastrous new abortion law.

Irish politician: “Real healthcare does not have a victim.”

Ireland’s pro-life politicians have been facing ferocious opposition in trying to push through amendments that would mitigate the impact of that country’s disastrous new abortion law. The Eighth Amendment – the part of the Irish constitution which had protected pre-born children from abortion – was repealed in September of this year. The Eighth Amendment was replaced by the phrase, “Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy”, allowing abortion on demand in the first trimester, and potentially to full term on certain conditions.

Ireland’s Lower House has been debating the terms of this change in law. One courageous TD [Lower House parliamentarians are known as ‘TD’s, for Teachta Dála], Carol Nolan, gave impassioned speeches last week, despite fierce opposition from pro-abortion TDs who have sought to discredit and disrespect the pro-lifers at every turn.

When TD Nolan went on to describe a first-trimester abortion procedure in detail, her comments met with resistance from pro-abortion TDs. Richard Barrett accused her of using language that is like graphic posters which are ‘designed to induce trauma, fear and shock’. Louise Reilly said Nolan’s comments were ‘dripping with judgment and a kind of visceral hatred of those women.’

Three TDs left their parties over abortion

Carol Nolan resigned from her party, Sinn Féin, in June. She had been on suspension for refusing to support the bill to repeal the Eighth Amendment – the bill that ultimately saw abortion legalised in Ireland. At the time, Deputy Nolan issued this statement:

“I do not want to have any hand, act or part in bringing about the end to the life of an unborn child, the most vulnerable in our society. It is not for politicians or society, in general, to decide who lives or dies.

“Every life is precious and every child deserves the chance to live. I don’t believe that abortion is the solution to any crisis. How can it be when it takes the right to life away from the unborn?

“I cannot and will not support abortion and for that reason I have made a decision to leave Sinn Féin.”

Another member of Sinn Féin, Peadar Tóibín, also resigned after a six month suspension. Mr Tóibín said he “lost speaking rights, spokesperson’s positions, portfolios” and was “significantly censored in … engagements with the media” because he voted against his party on abortion.

A third politician, Peter Fitzpatrick, left the formerly pro-life Finn Gael because of that party’s support for the repeal of the Eighth. Fine Gael is Ireland’s governing party, and its leader, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, announced the referendum as soon as he was elected. Mr Fitzpatrick sat on the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment and wrote the minority report, in support of the sanctity of life.

All amendments were voted down

Despite pleas from pro-life politicians, who presented evidence that their constituents were in favour of amendments, none so far have passed. Amendments around a ban on sex-selection, abortion on the grounds of disability and pain relief for babies were voted down, echoing similar votes on amendments to unrestricted abortion laws here in Australia.

An amendment to allow mandatory ultrasounds was also put forward and rejected. The pro-life politician who put forward the suggestion also brought up the subject of post-abortion grief. Pro-abortion TD, Lisa Chambers, retorted that “Abortion regret is made up and it does not exist.” [Video from parliament shows that she said: “Abortion regret is a makey-uppy thing. It doesn’t exist.”]. Intelligent.

Perhaps the most contentious amendment was to seek a ban on public funding of abortion. Carol Nolan put forward an amendment which sought to protect Irish taxpayers from funding abortions. Ms Nolan asked why taxpayers would be forced to “fund a service of forcing a fatal act on others who have done no wrong”. She stated:

“I ask Members to think about that and what it is we are talking about forcing people to pay for here. This is not health care. Real health care does not have a victim but abortion does.”

Now- Independent Peadar Tóibín, said he had had people come up to him in the street expressing surprise that the service would be State-funded. He also suggested that funding abortion services would mean less money for other parts of the health service. “If you take €12 million out of one budget to pay for this, it will mean that there are certain operations that won’t happen.”

Health Minister, Simon Harris, has been under fire for failing to provide a decent standard of healthcare for existing patients, while promising to provide abortions for free. There is also evidence to suggest that Harris, who was elected on a pro-life platform, has ties with the abortion industry, and stands to gain from the legalisation of abortion.

Simon Harris’ backflip challenged

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae challenged Harris’ change of stance from pro-life to pro-abortion during the amendment debates. Healy-Ray drew attention to a petition signed by 450 nurses and midwives requesting that pain relief be administered to babies before are killed in a late-term abortion:

… I saw the horror and shock. I saw how the Minister tried to interfere with the Acting Cathaoirleach [Chair of the Upper House]. He tried to stop Deputy Mattie McGrath from reading out this letter [petition]. Other people may not have noticed it. In case anyone was not looking at the Minister, he badgered the Acting Cathaoirleach to try to stop Deputy Mattie McGrath from reading out this letter. The Minister refused to accept a copy of the letter when it was given to him. This happens to Ministers every day; they are handed letters. The Minister did not want this letter because it contained the commitment and promise he gave to the electorate when he said he was pro-life. He has gone a long way from that now, but he showed an awful lot when he showed how shocked and horrified he was at the idea of Deputy Mattie McGrath reading into the record of the Dáil the letter the Minister sent to thousands of people saying, “Dear pro-life campaign” and signed “Kind regards, Simon”. Well Simon has changed an awful lot since then.

Potassium chloride is an extremely corrosive and painful thing to have going into anybody. All we are asking is to have pain relief for that. My God, it does not get any simpler or more humane than that.

Pro-life and pro-abortion politicians introduced a total of 65 amendments, and the protracted and contentious debate could mean that the abortion law, which the government had promised to be enacted by January 1, may not be settled by then. Despite this, Health Minister Harris has ordered the Health Service to make sure that its 19 maternity units will be ready to provide abortions from January and promised that a 24/7 ‘helpline’ will be available then. Debate is expected to slow even more as parliamentarians begin to discuss amendments centred around conscientious objection of medical professionals this week. Training of Ireland’s new baby-killing professionals begins on December 10th.

Transcript of one of Carol Nolan’s speeches in Parliament

“I just want to begin by saying that I find it so sad and frustrating that deputies came into this chamber – one deputy in particular – and made very wild accusations and damaging my reputation, by saying that this was coming from a business man. I can assure everybody here in this house: it absolutely did not. I have conscientious objection, (pauses) as does my colleague beside me. We were forced out of that party. that you represent and how dare you come in and try and destroy me and my character. and make accusations like that. No, I’ll continue on because I believe – I believe – there should be respect shown here.

I uphold fully the principles of equality. There are those of us who are taxpayers that have stated we’re very strongly opposed to abortion. Hundreds of thousands of those are women. And we all know that 723,000 people voted “no.” Including, you know, that there’s people with objections to this that were “yes” voters. I’m merely, as a representative, trying to convey those issues, those problems, those concerns that people have, and I’m being obstructed in this chamber from doing my work as a representative. And I think it’s a disgrace and I just want to put that on the record….

“….We’re told that the cost of abortions will be a very small percentage of public spending. If victims were anyone other than unborn children, no such point would ever be raised. It’s not much of a point, Minister, when 100% of the cost of abortions will be paid by taxpayers. Those of us who have serious conscientious objection. But then again, two of us here have left our party because of conscientious objection, and Finn Gael TD ahead of us has also done the same. That shows the lack of respect and regard for pro-life TDs in this chamber.”

Contacting Parliament on sex discrimination amendments

A number of Christian and other religious organisations are deeply concerned about the proposals in the ALP-sponsored private Bill due to be debated in the Senate on Monday Dec 3. As I have discussed in previous comments (here and here) the Bill, which started out as an agreed measure to stop religious schools from expelling gay students on the basis of their “orientation” alone, has a number of other serious consequences for religious freedom, not only for schools but for churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious organisations (such as, for example, University student ministries.)

The Bill amends the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to remove some clauses which have previously provided protection for Christian organisations to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs. It narrows the scope of s 37 of the Act, which has previously exempted religious bodies acting in accordance with their beliefs from being sued for discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. If the Bill in its current form goes through, a Christian student group, for example, may not be legally able to require those who engage in “education” on its behalf (whether at public meetings or in small groups) to teach the Bible’s view on sex or sexual activity. A church may find that its “education” in small groups or in its church services can be challenged as providing “less favourable” treatment to same sex attracted members of the congregation.

As well as my previous comments on this blog, see these other comments from Christian organisations:

I have been asked how concerned citizens can contact their Parliamentary representatives. There is a helpful “contact page” which allows electronic messages to be sent on this Parliament house web page. There is a box to type in your postcode to find out who your local MP is, and the “refine search” menu on this page enables you to identify all the Senators for your State.

Points that could be made include:

No religious schools want to be able to expel same sex attracted students on the grounds of their sexual orientation alone.

However, the current ALP-sponsored Bill goes far beyond dealing with this problem, and will seriously reduce the religious freedom of religious schools to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The Bill is also so widely framed that it removes protections for all “religious bodies” in relation to “education”, and this has the potential to make it unlawful for churches, mosques and synagogues to teach the doctrines of their faith to their own members.

It would be best if legislation was not rushed through at the last minute. Parliament should wait until the Ruddock Report has been released and there is time for careful consideration and consultation before making any amendments in this area.